“You didn’t build that”. Just for a moment, forget the immediate reaction and controversy over the exact wording. What if he really did mean roads and bridges instead of the business that benefit from them. Beyond the hubbub, what was his point?
Let me, a simple man, try to follow what he was talking about. Pull it apart and see what he was really trying to say.
I’ll start with the exact quote:
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me”.
The good news is apparently there are some “good” wealthy people. The POTUS has cited them as examples – but only the ones that agree with him.
“..because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t”
The bad news is even the “good” wealthy people that agree with him are still guilty. Or at least the POTUS thinks they should feel guilty because they didn’t give something back. This presumes they did not donate anything to anybody, mentored nobody, became role models for none, paid no taxes, hired no one (who would have intern bought things and paid taxes), they never invested in other’s ventures, never lost any money in ventures, never put money in banks that others could then borrow, they never developed products or services that anybody wanted, never bought anything from anybody else… or helped anybody – ever. (and I could go on…)
Why is word “give” is used. “Give” normally indicates an optional act. It’s a euphemism for tax and is only used here to soften the intent. “Give something back” infers that something was simply taken. Then to give something back wouldn’t you need to know exactly what that something was and from whom it was taken? One of advantage the POTUS maintains using of this type of reference is the ability to stretch this notion into what ever he wants it to mean. Again it’s the rich and their fair share thing. What is rich and what is fair share? It doesn’t matter, it just sounds sooo good, and who could disagree? It’s a trap, who would dare disagree? If you dare then it’s “isolate and ridicule”. And anyway, how do we know that the rich are not paying there fair share – you can’t, it’s perfect.
The POTUS is talking about taking what he wants, not giving something back.
“..look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own”
Very true, but what help and who helped? I assume that POTUS believes that the federal government was responsible for all the help. The biggest help I see that Fed contributed would be clearing the way and allowing success to happen in short – doing nothing. Most roads are state and local roads, state and local taxes. So for the most part, barring Federal road grants, that’s not the Feds money and where did that money come from anyway? Otherwise what help? Family, friends, teachers, mentors, partners, paid employees banks/investors. Mostly the “wealthy, successful American” would not have been so, if not for themselves – how awful, I should hate them for that.
“I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”
In this context the statement makes no sense at all. Basically – what the heck is he talking about? The roads and bridges are here for all, including the other non wealthy, successful American smart hardworking people. How did some smart hardworking Americans become wealthy and successful and some not?
Could it be success has more to do with ambition, motivation, guts, ideas, drive for excellence, self confidence and perseverance, oh and being smart and hardworking helps to. There are plenty of smart hardworking ditch diggers that have none of the other attributes. Is POTUS really saying the reason there are smart hard working ditch diggers is because the wealthy did not give something back, or that the roads and bridges unfairly somehow offered more to successful? Or is the POTUS trying to justify the rich pay fair share again. Or is this simple pandering because again it sounds sooo good, who could disagree?
Or perhap turn to the model of the athlele. Some work as hard or harder, some are as smart or smarter then others, why don’t they all make it to pro? We can all figure out why they don’t, not everybody is the same. This argument would be considered stupid if not for the usefulness the left sees in it.
“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”
Is this really the crux? So what if he said “you didn’t build that bridge or road.” Instead of simply “you didn’t build that”? What difference would that make? What is he trying to say? Although I can’t disagree with too much he said here there are some oddities. The POTUS referenced this unbelievable American system, and that it allowed you to thrive. Does he mean America really is exceptional after all? And if so, then why would he want to fundamentally transform it?
Finally, yes government research created the Arpanet, but it was not until 30 odd years later that visionary capitalist entrepreneurs saw the potential, invested in it, risked and lost and risked again, and built it into what it is today. The Goverment didn’t built it “SO that all the companies could make money“. It was capitalism that drew the cash in and turned a dirt walking path between some universities and defense department computers, into the cash making super highway in use today. The government didn’t build that, but now they can tax that.
If talking heads would look a little deeper into what was said instead of pouncing on a simple slip of the tongue, I thing they would find more flawed and disturbing messages here.
But what do I know.
Recent Comments